Hi Jecel,

on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:46:56 +0100, you wrote:
Klaus wrote:
...
>> Squeak - "Pavel's" (Etoys + Morphic)
>>         + "Juan's" Morphic
>>   = (Squeak - Etoys)
...
> So to express the plan I am talking about in your notation:
>
> Squeak3.10 - Juan's 3.7 work updated for 3.10 = Squeak3.10 - EToys

Hhm, not that I see any difference on the RHS but, yes: so it is (so it  
be).

> The difference is that this would be an operation that could be
> automated, so that we could distribute "Squeak 3.10 Full" and each
> interested person could call up a menu option and generate the EToyless
> image as needed. I am supposing that the plan you described would be a
> one time thing (since the Morphic being removed and the Morphic being
> added back are not the same) .

No, I didn't have a one time operation in mind. I'd leave that (support of  
unloading/loading for more than one release) to Pavel and Juan.

And yes, Juan most likely doesn't want the new Morphic be the same as the  
old one.

> It might be a bit subtle, since I am
> perfectly ok with having a "Squeak 3.10 Basic" image that doesn't
> include EToys. What I don't want to see happen is a version with no
> EToys options at all.

Since I'm on the neutral side: yes, give choice to the users.

Guy's suggestion is what we have today with the downloadable (and in-sync)  
Squeak-dev image: pick the image which fits your needs best.

But on the more pragmatic side: who's going to maintain the non-Etoyless.  
I think that's what people are concerned about (and that perhaps induced  
confusion into the discussion).

/Klaus

> -- Jecel
>
>